CoreCLR is now open source • Hacker News Board

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#171

Post by scrollaway » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 11:37 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #161

mahyarm wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your debugging code, being able to see all of the code in the stack trace is valuable alone.

Good debugging tools that filter out the irrelevant are perhaps better. Odds are that any time you break out the debugger the fix is in your code not Windows, Linux, the JVM etc. That's not to say those things don't have bugs, only that they are orders if magnitude more debugged than most code under development.

You are so completely wrong. Follow the Wine project for a few weeks/months to get familiar with just how buggy, inconsistent and inconceivably obscure all of Windows' APIs are.

If Windows was good and near-bug-free, Wine would have long been completed. Windows is not just its kernel.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#172

Post by scrollaway » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 11:40 PM UTC

doodpants wrote: post #112

fsloth wrote: post #65

De-Ballmerization and Microsoft is oozing delicious developer love. What the hell happened. It's like Skeletor became He-Mans best buddy all of a sudden and started helping everyone. I'm thrilled. The MS tooling is really, really good and the only thing stopping me from committing to the stack fully has been it's lack of open sourceness (vendor lock in is still feasible but getting less of an issue). Edit: Pardon the…

> De-Ballmerization and Microsoft is oozing delicious developer love. Kind of ironic, what with Ballmer's "Developers developers developers..." spiel.

Indeed. For someone who understood the problem, Ballmer sure missed out on understanding the solution.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#173

Post by e12e » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 11:45 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #86

Nelkins wrote: post #48

I would be curious to see the effects of completely open-sourcing Windows. Businesses would continue to use it, because it's Microsoft and they want enterprise support. I think it would get even more love than it already does from the development community. Piracy of Windows is already rampant, so they're not really in a worse position from that (plus I think that most people who can pay for Windows do so already). F…

Who is going to support 20 million lines of code other than Microsoft employees as amateurs bungle their way through thirty years of patches for backward compatibility wrapped around stupid and clever things OEM's and third party developers did to get their code to work? It's not like Linux because there isn't a team of experienced volunteers already working on the code base and the Windows code base contains a lot f…

I wonder what, if any, the implications are for the future of ReactOS as more and more of .net is opened up?

[Ed: as for 20mloc -- the opened parts of .net is already at 5mloc...

Also, love seeing stuff like this from tfa:

    git clone https://...corefxlab
    cd ...corefxlab\...HelloWorld
    nuget restore
    msbuild
    .\bin\Debug\HelloWorld.exe

]

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#174

Post by SXX » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 11:50 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #79

Delmania wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure they will migrate Visual Studio. First they'd need to move WPF, which is implemented in DirectX. Second, Visual Studio and MSDN are still profitable. Third, there's the Omnisharp project that;s working on providing support for the more common IDEs on linux. In fact, there's nothing stopping people from making Eclipse and IntelliJ plugins.

>> First they'd need to move WPF, which is implemented in DirectX. What version? There is DX9 support on Linux and IIRC a partial DX10/11 implementation bit-rotting somewhere.

>> There is DX9 support on Linux and IIRC a partial DX10/11 implementation bit-rotting somewhere.

Sadly Gallium3D isn't "Linux" yet. It's only really usable on AMD open source drivers that is very small portion of market and I would say it's 15% at best, but in reality likely 5-10%.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#175

Post by pron » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 11:55 PM UTC

joelthelion wrote: post #145

smacktoward wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or maybe they're playing a longer game: open source as much as they can, hope some network effect builds up, find out how to profit from it. That was Sun's strategy for Java; it didn't work out well for them. Java became huge, but Sun never did figure out how to make a dollar from it.

Sun didn't have Azure.

They did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Cloud

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#176

Post by larsberg » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 11:55 PM UTC

ploxiln wrote: post #169

lukasm wrote: post #165

hmm github can't preview cpp files https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/src/gc/gc.cpp

github suppresses views of syntax-highlighted files that have too many lines or too-long lines. They make browsers crawl or crash (too many elements...) and they're not useful for humans to try to view on a web page anyway. I guess it's no surprise that microsoft software has a human-edited source file that's over 35000 lines...

> I guess it's no surprise that microsoft software has a human-edited source file that's over 35000 lines...

IIRC, it was originally machine-generated... from LISP code written by David Bacon, under contract from the then-GC owner Patrick Dussud.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#177

Post by stirno » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 11:57 PM UTC

Raphael wrote: post #25

stevecalifornia wrote: post #18

I am really interested to see what happens once ASP.Net is running on Linux. C# and Visual Studio are fantastic, mature tools and I think a lot of developers would enjoy using them whereas they might be hesitant at the moment due to OS lock-in on the code they are writing.

Could/Does Visual Studio run in Linux?

There are several groups working to fill the gap left by VS not running on non-windows platforms (including my own company). There will be options!

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#178

Post by pron » Tue, Feb 03, 2015, 11:59 PM UTC

lubos wrote: post #101

frik wrote: post #3

Next step, WinForms

Java Swing turned out to be a failure because it didn't look native on any platform. I would recommend something like Eto.Forms ( https://github.com/picoe/Eto ) which is an abstraction over native GUI toolkits (WPF, WinForms, GTK+, Cocoa) Works really well and mature.

Ironic, then, that many of the most popular IDEs in the world right now are based on Swing.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#179

Post by pron » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 12:01 AM UTC

jvickers wrote: post #120

lubos wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Java Swing turned out to be a failure because it didn't look native on any platform. I would recommend something like Eto.Forms ( https://github.com/picoe/Eto ) which is an abstraction over native GUI toolkits (WPF, WinForms, GTK+, Cocoa) Works really well and mature.

My impression of Java UI components was that they looked boring and old-fashioned. It's a subjective judgement, but I guess others would have thought that way too. If Java Swing or other parts of the Java UI toolkit looked better than many native GUIs then there would have been more interest.

There has been a lot of interest. There are thousands upon thousands of big applications out there built on Swing, you just don't use them, because Java has never caught on in desktop consumer apps. But JetBrains' IDEs are based on Swing, as is NetBeans, and they look great.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#180

Post by derefr » Wed, Feb 04, 2015, 12:02 AM UTC

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #123

Nelkins wrote: post #48

I would be curious to see the effects of completely open-sourcing Windows. Businesses would continue to use it, because it's Microsoft and they want enterprise support. I think it would get even more love than it already does from the development community. Piracy of Windows is already rampant, so they're not really in a worse position from that (plus I think that most people who can pay for Windows do so already). F…

I don't see why everything needs to be open source. People who simply don't like Microsoft will not use it just because it's open. Quite the opposite I think - they'd probably immediately fork it and provide an alternate download in order to hurt Microsoft. Are foreign governments a big market that Microsoft has lost a lot of customers from? I don't think so. The vast majority of the potential market for Windows is a…

The first and biggest effect (presuming a GPL-compatible license) is that Wine would suddenly work much better, and so Ubuntu and OSX would likely ship their following versions with "the ability to run Windows software alongside native software with no performance loss" as a feature. OSX N+3 or so might even eliminate Boot Camp, saying that there's no need to install Windows as a whole if all the software "Just Works."